About your Search

20121202
20121210
STATION
MSNBCW 19
CNNW 8
MSNBC 3
KQED (PBS) 2
SFGTV 2
KQEH (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
today, that the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. lib cert a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is 37. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the m
it's going to play out the doma case prop 8 case how two different cases how do you think doma case. >> doma case involves whether someone who had lived with domestic partner for 45 years should have to pay estate taxes where if they lived as husband and wife she would not have to pay estate taxes and prop 8 involves whether or not gay marriage is simply legal. i think what we are seeing here they only need four justices to decide whether to take the issue. i think there is a little bit of politics there because if obama appoints more justices, they are not going to have to get the issue before the court. i think expect that the court going to say that gay marriage is legal just as they said you couldn't ban racially mixed racial marriages and things of that sort. you know, husband and wife, man and woman does not appear in the constitution. it's more a policy or religious decision than a legal decision. legally i don't think they can ban it. >> laura: i clerked at the court quite a few years ago now back in 1993. but predicting what the court is going to do is always quite difficul
to take it up. many of us thought this is exactly what's going to happen with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question e could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states say the definition of marriage are. so it was crafted because it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro-gay so arguing towards the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck it down, that it leads to the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think they are going to do the right thing and strike it down. the
. it decided to take these two, doma and proposition 8. why do you think they took these and not others? >> you know, after this election, this issue is so ripe for the supreme court the jurisdictions are so split in their laws, many states recognizing same-sex marriage and performing same-sex marriages. some states not recognizing them. this is the perfect scenario for the supreme court to step in and ultimately make a ruling. there are over 1,000 cases, joe, in which federal laws are impacted by marital status. the time has come. it's ripe. prop 8 was on the doorstep for the supreme court. here we go. >> avery, we were trading e-mails a little bit a while ago. one of the questions i asked you was whether the supreme court essentially gave itself an emergency escape hatch with one of the cases it chose. can you talk about that? >> late yesterday, as you know, joe, the supreme court amended its grant of review when it said, we want to know about the issue of standing. meaning does the person involved in the challenge have the right to be there in the first place. if the court doesn't then what
the doma case. gay marriage advocates who want the defense of marriage act struck down say doma creates a gay-only exception to federal recognition of state licensed marriages. and we believe that the federal government should stop discriminating against same sex couples legally married by their states. but defender of traditional marriage between one man and one woman say, quote: since president bill clinton signed doma into law, 30 states have followed suit by incorporating the definition of marriage into their constitutions. voters in these states will not accept an activist court redefining our most fundamental social institution. arguments on both cases are likely to be in march and rules likely in june. shep? >> shepard: we got another announcement from the supreme court today. it's going to take up another case that really could effect what we all pay for prescription drugs. >> right. this is about the battle between more expensive brand name drugs and cheaper generic drugs. some of the brand name companies pay the generic drug makers to keep cheaper drugs off store counters whi
tax on same sex domestic partners adds another sting to doma. these next few weeks will be significant forjíÑ the lgbt community and those who stand with them as the supreme court will decide whether to -- proposition 8 perry case and various doma cases however i don't believe we should stand still while this discrimination continues. i look forward to working with everyone on the board to the rest i submit. >> clerk calvillo: thank you. supervisor chu. >> supervisor chu: thank you very much. i have an empirrative item later on and i want to speak to it. it is a purely commendatory item. i am joined by supervisor elsbernd in sponsoring this. i simply want to recognize the grand reopening of the sunset rec center in my district located in the the heart of the sunset district and is actually our own full scale rec center that is available. we have many playgrounds, play fields, but we don't necessarily have a rec center so this one has been under construction foru the last two years. it was part of the 2008 clean that the voters approved and is a 14 million dollar project that has come
. the justices will also review a provision of the federal "defense of marriage act" or doma that deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the district of columbia. but 31 states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions. here with us to explain today's development, and where it could lead, is marcia coyle of "the national law journal." welcome back, marcia. >> thanks, marg wet. >> warner: so is it fair to say first of all that the court's decision to hear these first two cases in itself a momentous decision? >> absolutely. a number of gay rights organizations, particularly as if relates to the federal defense of marriage act have been working towards that point. and yes, whatever the court says, if it reaches the merits of these cases will be extremely important. >> warner: let's take them one by one, prop 8 in california first. remind us briefly of how what started out as a state issue ended am in the supreme court. >> the california supreme court a number of
of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what happens to that issu
with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different for reasons we can go into. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. then wash out the outliers like intraracial marriage did. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. it's a much more challenge. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states' definition of marriage are. in some ways it was crafted, it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro gay, so essentially toward the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck down the congressional statute that invariably leads the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think t
. probably the most serious standing questions are on the doma case and windsor case. the cases being defended by a group of republican members and it is not clear that they have actual standing to bring the case. so if the court says you don't have standing, then the e lower court would prevail and windsor would prevail. >> how would the court's ruling affect marriage equality? >> it couldn't be more important. that case came for african-americans in 1954, i believe. this could be that moment. we're all hoping that it is. this country is an imperfect union by mere fact that we have not recognized the right of people in love to be married. there are 120,000 couples in this country that are directly -- have their interests directly at stake. but it's not just them. the question is will this country embrace this fundamental human right? and i don't believe kennedy wants to be on the wrong side of history on that. >> this is the latest challenge to the constitutionty. is doma doomed? >> i think it is. there are four district courts saying it violated the rights of gay and lesbian couples
on the issue of same-sex marriage. the high court decided to hear two cases, one, doma, the defense of marriage act, and the other, a challenge to california's proposition 8 which took away the right for gays and lesbians to legally wed in the state. now the court's expected to hear arguments in march, with a ruling by late june. and the decision to take on the issue comes just weeks after voters in three more states approved same of sex marriage. joining me now, cnn's legal analyst jeffrey toobin. how big is this? put this in perspective. >> huge. this is really a major event in american history, not just court history. same-sex marriage now is at the center of the american legal world. this was a cause that was seen as a fringe issue as recently as the '90s. >> it wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. >> it was not even mentioned. polling has gone from, you know, approximately 20% to 30% support in the '90s. now gallup poll showed 53%. exist polls showed 49%. now ark fears command close to a majority support. and now the supreme court may decide that same-sex marriage will be the law of the
to consider choosing and two prop 8 ones. they have one doma and one prop 8. >> what's fascinating, this is a court that has avoided this issue. it's been pathological. everyone in lawrence v. texas, the opinion was distorted in my ways because of a clear effort not to say anything that would have baring on the same-sex marriage issue. suddenly, they take two issues with the broadest possible front. the question is, what are they going to do and whether they are going to reach an impasse. if there's an impasse, sometimes they go for narrow decisions. there are outs in these cases. both cases have standing issues. questions of whether these are the party that is have a right to bring this type of challenge. the standing issues are particularly prominent in the doma case. the proposition 8 case probably offers the broadest scope for a major ruling. what people, many people hope, is that that would be the case where the court says this violates equal protection. you can't deny these people the same rights of marriage. if it were to do that, then it would effectively set aside 31 state
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
. the other case called windsor versus doma originated in new york and challenges the constitutionality of the defense of marriage act. we're going to talk about this a little bit more this morning, and we'll have our legal contributor paul callan discuss it with us right after this break. i always wait until the last minute. can i still ship a gift in time for christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. up high! ok. don't you have any usefull apps on that thing? who do you think i am, quicken loans? ♪ at quicken loans, our amazingly useful mortgage calculator app allows you to quickly calculate your mortgage payment based on today's incredibly low interest rates... right from your iphone or android smartphone. one more way quicken loans is engineered to amaze. ♪ home of the legendary grand prix circuit. the perfect place to bring the all-new cadillac ats to test the 2.0-liter turbo engine. [ engine revs ] ♪ [ derek ] 272 horsepower. the lightest i
a decision that's down the road. there's a variety of different ways they could decide on doma. you know, they don't have to decide on equal protection grounds but the narrow question of benefits or certain benefits or certain tax breaks that married people who happen to be same sex should get or shouldn't get. so, there's a whole range of ways they could consider this. it doesn't mean they're just going to go in and determine that a law against same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination. there are a lot of other things they can do with it. >> benefits are one thing. recognition and allowance is another thing. here's the other thing. it is real hard to get breaking material and information out of the supreme court before they're ready to give it but on occasion good connections yield something and yet a lock-up in terms of what they might do with prop 8 and doma. >> yeah. that's true. but you have to remember, on these big, sweeping social issues that the court has decided throughout history, desegregation of public schools comes to mind, brown versus the board of education, that sat on
for the time being? >> reporter: you know, that's the interesting question here. we don't know. the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
. it's 2012 for pete's sake. we should all be equal by now. cheryl harris says "i think doma women get shut down quickly on solid legal grounds. prop 8 harder but kennedy will clear it up." >>> next the tug-of-war over the fiscal cliff. how much are democrats willing to give our entitlement cuts? we'll ask congressman elijah cummings that question. >>> the fight on capitol hill convinces a big powerball winner to claim his fortune now. you're watching "weekends with alex witt." [ woman ] ring. ring. progresso. in what world do potatoes, bacon and cheese add up to 100 calories? your world. ♪ [ whispers ] real bacon... creamy cheese... 100 calories... [ chef ] ma'am [ male announcer ] progresso. you gotta taste this soup. i tell them dentures are very different to real teeth. they're about 10 times softer and may have surface pores where bacteria can grow and multiply. polident is specifically designed to clean dentures daily. its unique micro-clean formula kills 99.9% of odor causing bacteria and helps dissolve stains, cleaning in a better way than brushing with toothpaste. that's why
early next year. in fact, ten cases related to the federal defense of marriage act, or doma and proposition 8 are pending against supreme court justices right now. at least one of them is going to make it to their docket. we could find out which one today about early next week or so. i'm joined by our legal analyst jeffrey tubin. remind us what are the court's oping whz it comes to marriage equality, and the differences here between doma and prop 8. >> well, defense of marriage act -- defense of marriage act was signed by president clinton in 1996, and it's a law that says the federal government, all as pecks of the federal government, including the internal revenue service will not recognize same-sex marriages even many states where same-sex marriage is legal and two appeals courts have held that that is unconstitutional, that it is unlawful discrimination. the obama administration agrees that this law is unconstitutional. it's now being defended by a lawyer hired by the house of representatives, and the case about is the defense of marriage act constitutional, that is one.
's start with doma. if that is struck down by the high court, thewill that be thed of conservatives' attempts of outlawing gay marriage? >> it is the mother of all federal laws to try to outlaw. it will be over it it's overturned. if social conservatives try to get smart about this stuff, looking for opportunities to play defense instead of offense, doma, which is a terrible law in my estimation, was an attempt to completely play offense. you can't do this anywhere in any state. we're going to pre-empt you before you try. i think social cons are in a much better position when they say, look, let's make it so the government can't compel us to do things privately we don't want to do. i think you'll see much more emphasis placed on that. the question will be more than what will the supreme court try to do because they don't want to be out in front of public opinion too much. it's going to be fascinating. >> and they've rarely been accused of doing that either. david, let's move on to prop 8 in california. if that's struck down, does that mean same-sex marriage is for all intensive purp
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)